I'm not sure where you're trying to go with all this - I hadn't mentioned the greenhouse effect, nor did the "prior poster".
What did you think he was talking about ?
The evidence shows that the localised RWP, MWP, and LIA events were triggered by factors other than CO2 - like fluctuations in solar irradiance and vulcanism [utexas.edu].
From your article " Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic."
Speaking as a 66-year-oldfart, going out in a sheet of flames in the one of the worlds fastest aircraft looks a lot better than shitting myself in a nursing home. Go ahead, let people take the risk if they want.
Hell it's either that or live long enough to watch the idiot snowflake generation destroy the country and western civilization, I'd take my chances going into space in a heartbeat.
You merely need to explain where the chemistry messes up, and the reaction becomes something other than carbon dioxide plus hydrogen equals methane and water
Thought I just did, if the input gas isn't pure CO2 which the discharge from a steel plant or anything collected from the atmosphere and the impurites are not processed out, than the reaction will be CO2+other+H2->CH4+H20+ other
My goodness. Dude. Words can have more than one meaning. It is not only allowed, it is required for language to work.
No really ? You mean all the people insisting that the greenhouse effect is relevant when speaking of windmills actually were talking about how greenhouses work ?
Well smack my head. Seeing as they kept saying otherwise how did you know ?
No, people don't wonder shit about what regard you hold anyone in.
People just think you're an idiot and you provide more evidence of that with every post you make.
Yeah that's about the level I have always seen from environmentalists. People that can't make their position, are always resorting to violence of some kind or other and for all the world act like they need to be punished by authority.
Why don't you come back when you learn how to actually have a position besides STFU.
Well yeah, Muslims are part of the global conspiracy. So are Catholics.
OK I can forgive someone not knowing the political history of Islam, but seriously you don't know the political role the Catholic Church has had in history ?
Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
All the article does is reaffirm my point that without a thorough understanding of how the dominant green house gas functions you can't make meaningful predictions based on incomplete models.
But hey tell me again how anything that says windpower causes warming is FUD.
Gee really ? You mean the prior poster failed to mention that the greenhouse effect contributes about 40 degrees K to our absolute temperature and without it at all we would be at a temperature of 248 Degrees K ?
Of that 40 degrees minimally 60% is from water and less two degrees can in any way be attributed to CO2 ? What's more CO2 still fails to explain the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period ?
Me I am expecting the news to stop talking about climate shortly and start talking about freak cold snaps as they always seem to around this time of year.
Purity is a function of input and process. It's hard to imagine where you could get impurities in the aforementioned process. Do suggest anything that comes to mind, my chemistry is quite a bit rusty, but I can't think of any major sources of impurities.
The article mentions it works with waste gas from steel mills. Doesn't mention if the higher concentration is preferred or not. Once again information that is needed but not reported.
And yes, cost effectiveness is not just a big "if". It's a fucking elephant in the room kind of huge "if". But that's what prototyping process is for. To figure out if there is a way to make the process cost effective or not.
Yeah but like I said earlier, about all the article tells me is that some Europeans converted CO2 and Hydrogen to Methane. Just off the top of my head Audi has a CO2 and water to diesel process, and the Office of Naval Research has a Seawater + CO2 to Jet Fuel Process. CO2+Hydrogen to methane I think goes back to WW1. Gas and Solids to liquid fuels is at least back to WWII.
As for the rest, I have no idea why you think that pure methane is not a wanted raw material in Europe
Is it pure ? The article doesn't say. Maybe that's why they talk about liquefying it instead of using a pipeline ??
So yeah, if these things actually become cost effective
Well that's the big if. If it happens a good portion is going to depend on where the process is now and just how far it can go. If it's a proof of concept just what is the concept and just how well did it prove out.
The article is a vacuum of information. The only take away I can have from it, is some people in Europe managed to convert CO2 and Water into Methane. Something which has been done lots of ways for a very long time. **cough**Nazis**cough**WWII**cough**
Water vapor is subject to short-term feedback loops that CO2 is not. That is why it has different impact. And also why it's not of such interest for changes taking decades.
In English that's "Water vapor is too complex to understand so even though we know from observation it has the biggest impact by far, we choose to ignore it"
I see why you are supporting the OP, non linear flow around wind turbines and the effect of changing the atmospheric flows is also complex and hard to understand. Best just ignore it.
Two is a weird number to throw around. In any complex system, it's unlikely that there are *only* (and exactly) two processes at work. There's a multitude of them.
Yeah I'd take that more seriously but I can still see your original comment
So your best argument is that a physical process doesn't exist because it was ineptly named? The power of magical thinking...
For someone who doesn't like binary characterizations, you are awful quick to go to anyone who doesn't agree with me is a fantasist.
Don't let me stop you though. I am enjoying watching you defend the OP dog whistling you.
The 0.03% contribution of Earth's internal heat is actually negligible.
1.68 degree K co2's contribution , Earth average temperature 288 degrees K.03% seems a little off there chief looks like CO2 contributes about half a percent or.005 ratio of Earth's temp.
Cost is massive, as this is a proof of concept prototype. Cost efficiency is not a concern at this stage.
Oh you are involved in the project ? How massive is massive in numbers and what does that translate into as a cost per cubic meter of natural gas ?
Target for methane is irrelevant (but electricity generating CCGTs would obviously love to have it, especially since this one is going to be of extremely high purity) because this is a proof of concept.
Well maybe for you but end users have their own ideas about what's relevant and what isn't
No answers about what the process costs. Who is the target market for the methane. Why aren't they going forward with their prior project to convert steel plant waste gas to fuel.
3. Radiation a gas molecule emits a photon and it's absorbed by another molecule, in the case of the earth you can include the planet as a heat source)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Or, that person just knows things about spectra.
And absolutely nothing about anything else that contributes to the Earth's temperature. You seem to be in that club.
So your best argument is that a physical process doesn't exist because it was ineptly named? The power of magical thinking...
Says the man who can't understand there are two processes at work and only one applicable analogy. Or did you think radiative transport would be dominant in the effects a windmill has on the atmosphere ? You know what ? I believe you just might.
Slashdot Mirror
to our markets was supposed to be a grand benefit ?
And why we have a senator with a Chinese spy on her staff
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with all this - I hadn't mentioned the greenhouse effect, nor did the "prior poster".
What did you think he was talking about ?
The evidence shows that the localised RWP, MWP, and LIA events were triggered by factors other than CO2 - like fluctuations in solar irradiance and vulcanism [utexas.edu].
From your article " Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic."
I don't know if I should be upset they are concentrating on the pointless, or happy they won't be in the way of the people actually making space work.
Speaking as a 66-year-oldfart, going out in a sheet of flames in the one of the worlds fastest aircraft looks a lot better than shitting myself in a nursing home. Go ahead, let people take the risk if they want.
Hell it's either that or live long enough to watch the idiot snowflake generation destroy the country and western civilization, I'd take my chances going into space in a heartbeat.
You merely need to explain where the chemistry messes up, and the reaction becomes something other than carbon dioxide plus hydrogen equals methane and water
Thought I just did, if the input gas isn't pure CO2 which the discharge from a steel plant or anything collected from the atmosphere and the impurites are not processed out, than the reaction will be CO2+other+H2->CH4+H20+ other
My goodness. Dude. Words can have more than one meaning. It is not only allowed, it is required for language to work.
No really ? You mean all the people insisting that the greenhouse effect is relevant when speaking of windmills actually were talking about how greenhouses work ?
Well smack my head. Seeing as they kept saying otherwise how did you know ?
No, people don't wonder shit about what regard you hold anyone in.
People just think you're an idiot and you provide more evidence of that with every post you make.
Yeah that's about the level I have always seen from environmentalists. People that can't make their position, are always resorting to violence of some kind or other and for all the world act like they need to be punished by authority.
Why don't you come back when you learn how to actually have a position besides STFU.
Well yeah, Muslims are part of the global conspiracy. So are Catholics.
OK I can forgive someone not knowing the political history of Islam, but seriously you don't know the political role the Catholic Church has had in history ?
The lovely thing about this subject is nobody knows what's going on but everyone is willing to demand money and other people do things
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea...
Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
All the article does is reaffirm my point that without a thorough understanding of how the dominant green house gas functions you can't make meaningful predictions based on incomplete models.
But hey tell me again how anything that says windpower causes warming is FUD.
Gee really ? You mean the prior poster failed to mention that the greenhouse effect contributes about 40 degrees K to our absolute temperature and without it at all we would be at a temperature of 248 Degrees K ?
Of that 40 degrees minimally 60% is from water and less two degrees can in any way be attributed to CO2 ?
What's more CO2 still fails to explain the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period ?
Me I am expecting the news to stop talking about climate shortly and start talking about freak cold snaps as they always seem to around this time of year.
Purity is a function of input and process. It's hard to imagine where you could get impurities in the aforementioned process. Do suggest anything that comes to mind, my chemistry is quite a bit rusty, but I can't think of any major sources of impurities.
The article mentions it works with waste gas from steel mills. Doesn't mention if the higher concentration is preferred or not. Once again information that is needed but not reported.
And yes, cost effectiveness is not just a big "if". It's a fucking elephant in the room kind of huge "if". But that's what prototyping process is for. To figure out if there is a way to make the process cost effective or not.
Yeah but like I said earlier, about all the article tells me is that some Europeans converted CO2 and Hydrogen to Methane. Just off the top of my head Audi has a CO2 and water to diesel process, and the Office of Naval Research has a Seawater + CO2 to Jet Fuel Process. CO2+Hydrogen to methane I think goes back to WW1. Gas and Solids to liquid fuels is at least back to WWII.
There's no news you can use there.
As for the rest, I have no idea why you think that pure methane is not a wanted raw material in Europe
Is it pure ? The article doesn't say. Maybe that's why they talk about liquefying it instead of using a pipeline ??
So yeah, if these things actually become cost effective
Well that's the big if. If it happens a good portion is going to depend on where the process is now and just how far it can go. If it's a proof of concept just what is the concept and just how well did it prove out.
The article is a vacuum of information. The only take away I can have from it, is some people in Europe managed to convert CO2 and Water into Methane. Something which has been done lots of ways for a very long time. **cough**Nazis**cough**WWII**cough**
And the bulk of that is from water vapor, hmm why didn't link mention water except for cooling ? hmmmmmm
Because NASA is part of the global conspiracy. Obviously.
Was that before or after they defined their primary mission to be Muslim outreach ?
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Water vapor is subject to short-term feedback loops that CO2 is not. That is why it has different impact. And also why it's not of such interest for changes taking decades.
In English that's "Water vapor is too complex to understand so even though we know from observation it has the biggest impact by far, we choose to ignore it"
I see why you are supporting the OP, non linear flow around wind turbines and the effect of changing the atmospheric flows is also complex and hard to understand. Best just ignore it.
Two is a weird number to throw around. In any complex system, it's unlikely that there are *only* (and exactly) two processes at work. There's a multitude of them.
Yeah I'd take that more seriously but I can still see your original comment
So your best argument is that a physical process doesn't exist because it was ineptly named? The power of magical thinking...
For someone who doesn't like binary characterizations, you are awful quick to go to anyone who doesn't agree with me is a fantasist.
Don't let me stop you though. I am enjoying watching you defend the OP dog whistling you.
The 0.03% contribution of Earth's internal heat is actually negligible.
1.68 degree K co2's contribution , Earth average temperature 288 degrees K .03% seems a little off there chief looks like CO2 contributes about half a percent or .005 ratio of Earth's temp.
Cost is massive, as this is a proof of concept prototype. Cost efficiency is not a concern at this stage.
Oh you are involved in the project ? How massive is massive in numbers and what does that translate into as a cost per cubic meter of natural gas ?
Target for methane is irrelevant (but electricity generating CCGTs would obviously love to have it, especially since this one is going to be of extremely high purity) because this is a proof of concept.
Well maybe for you but end users have their own ideas about what's relevant and what isn't
You see you have pegged yourself as being dishonest here quite likely with yourself.
Lets take your point as granted
"cause a reduction in energy radiation to space, thus effectively adding heat energy over time to the system,"
This makes the OP's other half of his statement wrong
"Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold."
Because by the definition you use anything that "causes a reduction in energy radiation to space", adds energy to the system.
So to answer your question " Is that literal and pedantic enough for you?"
No, it might have been if you could have gotten it right.
Usual bad reporting from a zealot.
No answers about what the process costs. Who is the target market for the methane. Why aren't they going forward with their prior project to convert steel plant waste gas to fuel.
3. Radiation a gas molecule emits a photon and it's absorbed by another molecule, in the case of the earth you can include the planet as a heat source)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Or, that person just knows things about spectra.
And absolutely nothing about anything else that contributes to the Earth's temperature. You seem to be in that club.
So your best argument is that a physical process doesn't exist because it was ineptly named? The power of magical thinking...
Says the man who can't understand there are two processes at work and only one applicable analogy. Or did you think radiative transport would be dominant in the effects a windmill has on the atmosphere ? You know what ? I believe you just might.
It's a quantum resistant solution.
Err How does it work, what makes it quantum resistant, how long is it expected to be resistant
***Crickets****
Might as well be a press release for Blackberry.
Nobody is saying the Earth is literally a greenhouse with a glass roof
LOL sure they aren't. That would be the same way the OP is insightful for saying "Greenhouse gases add heat energy" / sarcasm
I.e. It's the same source, but mine actually knows what she's talking about.
This is called cherry picking. Can you say that ? "Cherry Picking" I knew you could.
You realize that in 100 years it adds up to 1 part per hundred, right?
You realize that, that 100 ppm is since the industrial revolution ? Or going on 300 years now not per year ?
And people wonder why I hold environmentalists in the same regard I hold young earth creationists.